Public Prosecutor v Purwanti Parji

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: V K Rajah JC
• Judgment Date: 29 September 2004
• Neutral Citation: [2004] SGHC 224
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 01 October 2004
• Year: 2004
• Plaintiff Counsel: Jaswant Singh, Chong Kah Wei and Abigail Ng (Deputy Public Prosecutors)
• Defendant Counsel: Subhas Anandan (Harry Elias Partnership) and Mohamed Nasser bin Mohamed Ismail (Md Nasser Ismail and Co)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Offences,Culpable homicide,Section 304(a) Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed),Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Sentencing,Deterrent Factor,Violence in the context of an employer and domestic worker relationship merits heavy sentence,Nationality of victim and or accused an irrelevant consideration,Whether any mitigating factors present
• Citation: [2004] SGHC 224

29 September 2004

V K Rajah JC:

1 The precepts of the criminal justice system are applied uniformly and even-handedly to all criminal offenders in Singapore. Singaporeans and foreigners alike, residents and visitors alike, employers and employees alike, the affluent and the impecunious alike – all face identical judicial considerations should they choose to run afoul of the law. No innate factors dictated by the identity of the victim or that of the accused will be permitted to colour or cloud judgment and impede the course of justice. A consistently unwavering and relentless application of this judicial remit is a fundamental and inalienable pillar of the Singapore legal system.

2 Foreigners, who commit offences, whether they are employees or transient visitors, should not expect to be treated any differently from Singaporeans in a similar predicament. They can, however, rest assured that their nationality and/or the nationality of the victim will not tip the balance when it comes to judgment and sentencing. Sentencing considerations are determined entirely and solely by the criminal act in the context of the established factual matrix.

Dramatis personae

3 The accused, Purwanti Parji, is an Indonesian national. At the time of the offence on 4 August 2003, she was 17 years and 10 months old and was employed as a domestic worker.

4 The deceased, Har Chit Heang, was 57 years old at the material time. She was a housewife and resided at a house in Tai Keng Gardens (“the Tai Keng house”) with her husband and younger son.

5 The accused was employed as a domestic maid by Ms Mok Wai Cheng (“Ms Mok”), the deceased’s daughter-in-law, in November 2002. Ms Mok is married to the deceased’s elder son and resides at a flat in Block 30 Woodlands Crescent, Singapore (“the Woodlands flat”).

6 The accused stayed with Ms Mok, her husband and their baby daughter at the Woodlands flat on weekends and at the Tai Keng house on weekdays, when the deceased was entrusted with caring for her granddaughter.

Factual overview

7 On 4 August 2003 at about 11.37am, the police received a call from the accused reporting that “just now my auntie give the baby and she go upstairs … since 1030hrs … she say she want to do something … she don’t want to open the door … I don’t know what she is doing … I cannot see her”.

8 When the police arrived at the Tai Keng house, they were let into the premises by the accused, who was carrying the baby. No one else was present in the house. The accused led the police and the Singapore Civil Defence Force paramedics (“SCDF paramedics”) to a bedroom on the second floor of the house. The door was locked from the inside. One of the police officers, Sgt Muhalim bin Rohimin (“Sgt Muhalim”), knocked on the door. There was no response.

9 Upon forcibly entering the bedroom, Sgt Muhalim found the deceased lying motionless on the bed. She was wearing a T-shirt and shorts. She had a knife in her left hand and there were some linear cuts on her right wrist which had bled lightly. The blood around the cuts had dried up. There were fingernail abrasions on the deceased’s neck. Her right eye was bruised. The SCDF paramedics attempted to resuscitate the deceased but to no avail. All vital signs of life were absent. The deceased was pronounced dead at 12.13pm by one of the attending SCDF paramedics.

10 There were no visible signs of any forced entry into the Tai Keng house or any indication that a burglary had been committed. On his arrival, the deceased’s husband informed the police that the family had recently received two anonymous handwritten notes advising them to monitor the activities of the accused and to securely keep the keys of the rear gate of the house.

11 Further enquiries failed to reveal the presence of any suspicious persons in the vicinity of the house at the material time.

12 The police officers, however, observed that the accused had neatly cut fingernails that appeared to have been very recently trimmed. The accused was subsequently arrested at about 9.55pm on suspicion of having murdered the deceased. She underwent a medical examination at the KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital later that evening. Superficial abrasions were noted over her right index and right middle fingers. When interviewed at the Criminal Investigation Department, she admitted that she had strangled the deceased on the morning of 4 August 2003.

13 On 5 August 2003, an autopsy was performed by a forensic pathologist, Dr George Paul. He found multiple abrasions on the deceased’s chin region and her neck. There had been extensive bleeding in the underlying neck muscles. In addition, the hyoid bone and the thyroid cartilage were fractured. There was a further haemorrhage under the scalp in the right temporal region, bruises on both eyelids and extensive subconjunctival haemorrhage in both eyes.

14 According to Dr George Paul, the abrasions were “consistent with those inflicted by fingertips and nails, from gripping the neck region and were sufficient, by causing damage to the neck structures within, to cause death in the ordinary [course] of nature by strangulation”. He was of the opinion that the “pattern of crescentric and somewhat transverse abrasions as well as the extensive circumscribed effusion of blood in the underlying muscles of the neck and the asymmetric fractures of the hyoid bone and the thyroid cartilage suggest these injuries to have arisen from manual strangulation”. In his view, the scalp bruising appeared to be the result of an impact with some linear blunt object. He certified the cause of death as “strangulation”.

15 Investigations revealed that on the morning of 4 August 2003, the deceased, her husband and younger son had all been staying as usual at the Tai Keng house. The deceased’s elder son, Ms Mok, their baby and the accused arrived at the Tai Keng house early in the morning, after which the couple left for work at about 8.15am. Her younger son departed at about 9.00am and the deceased’s husband left for work shortly thereafter, leaving only the deceased, the baby and the accused at home.

16 The accused claimed that she first contemplated killing the deceased while she was carrying out her household chores. She had become agitated and was extremely upset with the deceased for unjustifiably reprimanding her. When the thought first crossed her mind, the deceased was sleeping in her bedroom on the second floor of the Tai Keng house with the baby. The accused states that she twice approached the deceased’s bedroom with the intention of strangling her but failed to carry out the act. After the second occasion, she noticed a knife upon returning to the kitchen. She seized it and proceeded once again to the deceased’s bedroom clutching the knife.

17 However upon entering the bedroom she decided against using the knife and proceeded to strangle the deceased who was sound asleep. In the process of strangling the deceased, she used one of her hands to press the deceased’s eyes shut. Having been caught unawares, the deceased could only put up mild resistance. As a consequence of the deceased’s struggling, they both fell off the bed and the deceased hit her head against a small table standing beside the bed. Shortly thereafter, all resistance from the deceased completely ceased. The accused then carried the deceased and placed her back on the bed. In order to simulate the appearance of a suicide, the accused used the knife to cut the deceased’s right wrist and placed the knife in the deceased’s left hand.

18 The accused then calmly carried the baby out of the bedroom, shut the bedroom door and proceeded downstairs. She had earlier noticed her nail marks on the deceased’s neck. In an attempt to conceal her involvement, she trimmed her fingernails with a nail-clipper. She later proceeded to feed the baby after which she contacted the police (see [7] above).

19 The accused then left the house and sought the help of the neighbours. She told them that the deceased had not emerged from her bedroom for some time and that she had concerns about her well-being.

20 The accused was initially charged with the murder of the deceased pursuant to s 302 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) (“PC”). Just before the proceedings commenced, the charge was amended to a lesser charge of culpable homicide pursuant to s 304(a) of the PC, which prescribes, inter alia, a sentence of life imprisonment or a term of imprisonment not exceeding ten years. The accused admits having strangled the deceased and has now entered an unqualified plea of guilt to the amended charge.

The employer and domestic worker relationship

21 The privacy and sanctity of the home constitute a sacred right. Having said that, the relationship between an employer and a domestic worker is not a private matter in which public policy has no role to play or right to intrude. Domestic workers are not chattels to be abused and debased with impunity. The sanctity of hearth and home should be respected and preserved in such a manner that both household members and domestic workers enjoy secure expectations and total peace of mind that physical violence in any form is alien and wholly impermissible in the context of their relationship.

22 The court has repeatedly made it patently clear that employers who mistreat their foreign domestic workers will be severely excoriated, with such malfeasance entailing nothing less than severe deterrent sentences. In this context, Yong Pung How CJ emphatically stated in Farida Begam d/o Mohd Artham v PP [2001] 4 SLR 610 at [26]:

In imposing custodial sentences, the courts in cases like Wong Suet Peng v PP (MA 170/2000) and Chung Poh Chee v PP (MA...